Williams v. Smith, 2015-UP-431

• Decision Date: 19 August 2015
• Docket Number: 2015-UP-431
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer, and Mary B. Wallmeyer, Respondents, v. F. Carlisle Smith and First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc., Defendants, Of Whom F. Carlisle Smith is the Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-000204

Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer, and Mary B. Wallmeyer, Respondents, v. F. Carlisle Smith and First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom F. Carlisle Smith is the Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-000204

No. 2015-UP-431

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

August 19, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard Date May 14, 2015

Appeal From Orangeburg County Richard B. Ness, Special Referee

Louis H. Lang, of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, of Columbia for Appellant.

Curtis W. Dowling and Matthew Gregory Gerrald, both of Barnes Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP, of Columbia; and Gregory G Williams, of Gregory G. Williams, Attorney, LLC, of Columbia for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

F Carlisle Smith appeals the special referee's order determining the boundary between Smith's property and property owned by Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer and Mary B. Wallmeyer. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Bodiford v. Spanish Oak Farms, Inc., 317 S.C. 539, 544, 455 S.E.2d 194, 197 (Ct. App. 1995) ("A boundary dispute is an action at law, and the location of a disputed boundary line is a question of fact." (citation omitted)); Uxbridge Co. v. Poppenheim, 135 S.C. 26, 31, 133 S.E. 461, 462 (1926) (noting "[a] mere confusion of boundaries of land is not sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction, " but finding appellant was entitled to equitable relief because appellant's only possibly remedy was through a court in equity); Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the [special referee] will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the [special referee's] findings."); Danley Williams v. Moore, 400 S.C. 90, 102, 733 S.E.2d 224, 230 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Questions regarding credibility and weight of evidence are exclusively for the [special referee]."); Bodiford, 317 S.C. at 543 n.1, 455 S.E.2d at 197 n.1 ("When determining boundaries, resort is generally had first to natural boundaries, next to artificial monuments, then to adjacent boundaries, and last to courses and distances."); id. at 543-44 n.1, 455 S.E.2d at 197 n.1 (explaining this rule "indicates the weight generally given to each type of evidence of location" and "does not provide an order of admissibility, such that evidence of artificial boundaries is admissible only if there is no evidence of natural boundaries" (citation omitted)); State v. Hardee, 259 S.C. 535, 539, 193 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1972) ("When a body of land is bounded...